New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
ALREADY HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
NEED MORE DETAILS?
MyHealth for Mobile
Therapeutic Options in Docetaxel-Refractory Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Therapeutic Options in Docetaxel-Refractory Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis PLOS ONE Zhong, L., Pon, V., Srinivas, S., Nguyen, N., Frear, M., Kwon, S., Gong, C., Malmstrom, R., Wilson, L. 2013; 8 (5)Abstract
Docetaxel is an established first-line therapy to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Recently, abiraterone and cabazitaxel were approved for use after docetaxel failure, with improved survival. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) preliminary recommendations were negative for both abiraterone (now positive in final recommendation) and cabazitaxel (negative in final recommendation).To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone, cabazitaxel, mitoxantrone and prednisone for mCRPC treatment in US.A decision-tree model was constructed to compare the two mCRPC treatments versus two placebos over 18 months from a societal perspective. Chance nodes include baseline pain as a severity indicator, grade III/IV side-effects, and survival at 18 months. Probabilities, survival and health utilities were from published studies. Model cost inputs included drug treatment, side-effect management and prevention, radiation for pain, and death associated costs in 2010 US dollars.Abiraterone is a cost-effective choice at $94K/QALY (quality adjusted life years) compared to placebo in our base-case analysis. Cabazitaxel and abiraterone are the most effective, yet also most expensive agents. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) at base-case are $101K/QALY (extended dominated) for mitoxantrone vs. placebo, $91K/QALY for abiraterone vs. mitoxantrone, $956K/QALY for cabazitaxel vs. abiraterone. Abiraterone becomes less cost-effective as its AWP increases, or if the cost of mitoxantrone side-effect management decreases. Increases in the percentage of patients with baseline pain leads to an increased ICER for both mitoxantrone and abiraterone, but mitoxantrone does relatively better. Cabazitaxel remains not cost-effective.Our base case model suggests that abiraterone is a cost-effective option in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC patients. Newer treatments will also need a CEA assessment compared to abiraterone.
View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0064275
View details for Web of Science ID 000320362700127
View details for PubMedID 23717582
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3661482